OCR Text |
Show ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINE IN THE WEST 199 rights.192 As the courts construe this legislation, the importance of riparianism and its correlation with appropriative water rights in Oklahoma may become more settled.193 Alaska.-A territorial statute enacted in 1917 applied riparian principles to mining claims that included within their boundaries both banks of a stream, in the absence of prior appropriation of water.194 The United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, stated (probably as dictum) that this statute enacted the law of riparian rights to a limited extent.195 But in 1966, the State legislature enacted the Water Use Act,196 which is fundamentally an appropriation doctrine statute. Without mentioning the term "riparian," it apparently purports to phase out that water-rights doctrine. It repealed the earlier mining legislation197 and, among other things, declared that a water right acquired by law before the effective date of the act, or a beneficial use of water on such date, or such a use made within 5 years before it or in conjunction with works under construction, "under a lawful common law or customary appropriation or use, is a lawful appropriation under this chapter.. . subject to applicable provisions of this chapter. .. ."198 This and related provisions of the 1966 act are discussed in more detail later.199 Hawaii. -The riparian doctrine has been recognized by the Hawaii Supreme Court in a few decisions, only two of which specifically adjudicated riparian water rights.200 The result was to apply the riparian doctrine, as between "konohiki" or landlord units, to the surplus freshet waters of streams but not to the normal flow. Owing to the physiography and hydrology of the islands, the question of riparian rights is probably not of great practical importance in their economy. Moreover, unlike the other States previously discussed in this subsection, there is no appropriation system of surface water rights. 192Okla. Laws 1963, ch. 205, Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 60 (Supp. 1970) and tit. 82, § 1-A (1970). 193 A recent case, Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dist., 464 Pac. (2d) 748 (Okla. 1968), is discussed later under "Interrelationships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-Oklahoma." 194 Alaska Laws 1917, ch. 57, Comp. Laws Ann. § 47-3-35 (1949), Stat. § § 27.10.080 (Supp. 1962) and 38.05.260 (Supp. 1965). 195Balabanoff v. Kellog, 10 Alaska 11, 16-17, 118 Fed. (2d) 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1940), certiorari denied, 314 U. S. 635 (1941). 196 Alaska Laws 1966, ch. 50, Stat. § 46.15.010 et seq. (Supp. 1966). 197 Alaska Laws 1966, ch. 50, § 2. 198 Alaska Stat. § 46.15.060 (Supp. 1966). 199 See "Interrelationships of the Dual Water Rights Systems-The Status in Summary: By States-Alaska." ™°Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 24 Haw. 47 (1917); Territory of Hawaii v. Gay, 31 Haw. 376 (1930), affirmed, 52 Fed. (2d) 356 (9th Cir. 1931), certiroari denied, 284 U. S. 677 (1931). |